 "Why Supreme Court wants judges to live like hermits and work like horses")
The Supreme Court has called on judicial officers to avoid social media and refrain from expressing their opinions on legal matters online. It said that judges should maintain the highest level of impartiality and that their conduct must reflect humility and discipline.
“Judicial officers should not go to Facebook. They should not comment on judgments because tomorrow, if the judgment is cited, the judge has already expressed one way or the other,” the court observed on Thursday, reinforcing that judicial officers should “live like a hermit and work like a horse.”
The court further said that there is no place for showiness or public display in the judiciary, which demands an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.
The comments were made by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh while hearing a case involving the dismissal of two women judicial officers, Aditi Kumar Sharma and Sarita Chaudhary, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
In its oral remarks, the Supreme Court stressed that social media is an open platform, which can be misused by judicial officers if they express opinions on ongoing cases or judgments. “You have to live life as a hermit, work like a horse. So much sacrifice judicial officers have to do. They should not go into Facebook at all,” the court said.
The court’s observations were in response to concerns raised by senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who is serving as an amicus curiae (court-appointed advisor) in the case. Agarwal had submitted a Facebook post by one of the dismissed judges, Aditi Sharma, as evidence of improper conduct, which prompted the Supreme Court to address the issue of social media use by judicial officers.
More From This Section
Echoing the court’s sentiments, senior advocate R Basant, representing one of the dismissed women judges, expressed strong agreement with the court's stance. He argued that no judge or judicial officer should post anything related to their judicial work on social media platforms, as such posts could potentially compromise the integrity of their judgments and public perception of their impartiality.
The case at hand revolves around the dismissal of six women civil judges by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in November 2023. These dismissals were reportedly based on performance evaluations, which raised questions about the standards used to assess judicial officers. On August 1, 2023, the Madhya Pradesh High Court reinstated four of the six women judges—Jyoti Varkade, Sushri Sonakshi Joshi, Sushri Priya Sharma, and Rachna Atulkar Joshi—subject to certain conditions. However, the other two judges, including Aditi Sharma, were not reinstated, which has led to further legal scrutiny and the Supreme Court’s intervention in the matter.
A report by the Madhya Pradesh High Court highlighted a noticeable decline in Aditi Sharma’s performance, with her ratings dropping from “very good” and “good” to “average” and “poor” between 2019-20 and 2022.
The report also noted that her disposal rate, which measures the number of cases a judge can resolve, was well below the expected threshold of 200 cases in 2022. However, Sharma contended that her performance decline was due to personal hardships, including a miscarriage in 2021 and her brother's subsequent cancer diagnosis, which severely affected her ability to perform her judicial duties.
In response to the high court’s findings, the Supreme Court also observed that a fair and accurate quantitative assessment of the judges’ work could not be carried out during the Covid-19 pandemic due to the disruption of court operations. Despite these challenges, the high court moved forward with the dismissals, a decision which the Supreme Court has now questioned. The court has now issued notices to the high court registry and the judicial officers involved, seeking clarification on the matter.
[With PTI inputs]